All that really needs to happen is to make G12 and zetas worth more GP than they are currently worth. Or if the devs don't want to muck around with the current GP formula, they could make the GP leap for G13 extremely large. Players with lean rosters would eventually start to separate from ones with lots of fluff as they would gain GP faster.

I realize that matchmaking is going to have a range of competitiveness, and that's healthy - I routinely win 1-2 rounds in GA even when I'm generally at a disadvantage in zetas/G12, because I have good mods, know the counters, and can usually lock down the ships area (when it is there). I like the satisfaction of outwitting opponents who have superior resources than I.

However, any formula where two players can have identical GP, yet one player has an additional 50+ G12 characters (with equal G11), and an additional 30+ zetas just isn't a very good measurement of competitiveness. Those types of match-ups aren't fun for either party, and usually end up with the weaker player not even setting a defense. A game mode where the outcome is predetermined isn't fun.

I know the analogies are beaten to death in here, but I'll play. Imagine you have one person that practices playing tennis 40 hours a week, and someone else who practices playing tennis 10 hours a week and swimming the other 30 hours. These people should not be matched in a tennis tournament - one person should be in a tournament for professional tennis players while the other should be in a tournament for amateurs. Correspondingly the professional tournament should have much greater reward for participating.

Perhaps radical, but why not let the users select the competitive tier they want to be in? Let players determine the risk/reward level that best suits their roster composition and style of play. That way I can chose to come last in a hard bracket for good rewards or have fun being competitive in a lower bracket for a mediocre payout.

I actually really like that idea. Choosing your competitive bracket. Say Easy, Medium, Hard and Expert. As long as rewards for 1st and 2nd-4th place in Medium are better than last place for Hard, people would rather do the bracket where they have a chance for first in to achieve better rewards, but not as good as the next level.

How you determine the criteria for each competitive bracket is beyond me but there are a lot ways to go about that. But that's not our job.

God tier ppl would still choose easy cause better to crush for less rewards sateeeeesfaction lol

so players who focused on different game modes being at a disadvantage to player who focused on being competitive in TW style of game play. I'm not sure how that is anything other than the way its supposed to be plain and simple.

no this is different than TW matchmaking. that is an issue of itself but mostly based around matching vs multiple players.

matching based on GP and other factors can work fine. and if they dont have teams or counter teams built for this style of game mode, thats their fault.

Your wrong. Someone who doesn't focus on arena and is rank +1000, doesn't battle with those at rank <99 with arena meta teams. You cannot argue against that. Why is GA any different?

In GA they are both competing for the same amount of rewards. In arenas they are not.

Its not too difficult to award more GP for certain characters in the GA matchmaking, or other factors in matchmaking for that matter. Obviously some of you want rewards not truly earned.

Building a strong roster is also part of earning the rewards. Why should players with weaker rosters be matched with other players with weaker rosters to have easier access to rank 1 rewards than players with stronger rosters?

Building a strong roster is also part of earning the rewards. Why should players with weaker rosters be matched with other players with weaker rosters to have easier access to rank 1 rewards than players with stronger rosters?

I’m not asking to fight weaker rosters. I dont mind fighting stronger rosters long as i have a outside mathematical chance of winning what the heck....

What i am asking for is to stopped being matched with people there is a 0.0 % chance of winning even if the opponent was the worst player on earth....

I like how some people are ok with fluff, just not with ship fluff. Fluff is fluff. I will borrow a common argument and say that yall choose to build ships; noone forced you.
Seriously yall are being hypocritical. Yall want fluff to be counted when it gives you an advantage but the moment it puts you at a disadvantage, yall whine.

Why should there be any investment in our rosters that penalize us in any game mode? The very idea that some investment of time and money is "fluff", and actively hurts that player, is ludicrously bad game design.

Imagine if phase 2 of the HSR said "...and if you have a G11 Bodhi on your roster, take triple damage from all attacks. If you have a G12 Bodhi, take quadruple damage from all attacks." What? Putting resources into that character is injuring me, to the point that I'd happily delete all of the gear and levels from that character?

If they're not going to fix this, and they're not going to let us un-level and un-gear characters, then maybe the Devs can implement a warning button when applying gear and levels. Just re-use the warning popup when we apply Zetas. Here's the text: "WARNING: Are you sure you want to level/apply gear to _______? This character is not useful in PvP, and this action may cripple your chances of winning the Grand Arena!"

Building a strong roster is also part of earning the rewards. Why should players with weaker rosters be matched with other players with weaker rosters to have easier access to rank 1 rewards than players with stronger rosters?

I’m not asking to fight weaker rosters. I dont mind fighting stronger rosters long as i have a outside mathematical chance of winning what the heck....

What i am asking for is to stopped being matched with people there is a 0.0 % chance of winning even if the opponent was the worst player on earth....

Not sure why thats asking so much

Building your roster for GA is also part of the event. It's no different than building a strong roster for TW or a strong team/fleet for arena. If you have no chance of winning any round against players with rosters of similar GP, they simply built better rosters for GA than you did. In that case, be happy with the few rounds you win, and get to work and build a better roster for GA. No, you can't remove your fluff any more than I can, but you could give your troopers and your Traya team a bit of love. Actually, when checking your roster on swgoh.gg, I have a hard time believing, that you don't win some rounds in GA and that you are only matched against players with significantly stronger rosters. You actually have more g12 characters (and usefull g12 characters), than I do - and we have quite similar total GP. If you never win, either your modding, your strategy or your execution must be off. Otherwise, some of the players, I have been matched with, would never stand a chance against you.

I like how some people are ok with fluff, just not with ship fluff. Fluff is fluff. I will borrow a common argument and say that yall choose to build ships; noone forced you.
Seriously yall are being hypocritical. Yall want fluff to be counted when it gives you an advantage but the moment it puts you at a disadvantage, yall whine.

Why should there be any investment in our rosters that penalize us in any game mode? The very idea that some investment of time and money is "fluff", and actively hurts that player, is ludicrously bad game design.

Imagine if phase 2 of the HSR said "...and if you have a G11 Bodhi on your roster, take triple damage from all attacks. If you have a G12 Bodhi, take quadruple damage from all attacks." What? Putting resources into that character is injuring me, to the point that I'd happily delete all of the gear and levels from that character?

If they're not going to fix this, and they're not going to let us un-level and un-gear characters, then maybe the Devs can implement a warning button when applying gear and levels. Just re-use the warning popup when we apply Zetas. Here's the text: "WARNING: Are you sure you want to level/apply gear to _______? This character is not useful in PvP, and this action may cripple your chances of winning the Grand Arena!"

CG design and implement characters and their kit. It's up to you - the player - to figure out, which characters are strong/usefull and for which scenarios/game modes and in which teams. Wether you put your next carbanti on your CUP or on your GK is up to you to decide. It's your own responsibility - not CG's. Your suggested warning is not a good idea.

Furhermore, no matter which character, you give that carbanti to, your roster grows stronger. That CUP becomes stronger, just as well as GK does.

so players who focused on different game modes being at a disadvantage to player who focused on being competitive in TW style of game play. I'm not sure how that is anything other than the way its supposed to be plain and simple.

no this is different than TW matchmaking. that is an issue of itself but mostly based around matching vs multiple players.

matching based on GP and other factors can work fine. and if they dont have teams or counter teams built for this style of game mode, thats their fault.

Your wrong. Someone who doesn't focus on arena and is rank +1000, doesn't battle with those at rank <99 with arena meta teams. You cannot argue against that. Why is GA any different?

In GA they are both competing for the same amount of rewards. In arenas they are not.

Its not too difficult to award more GP for certain characters in the GA matchmaking, or other factors in matchmaking for that matter. Obviously some of you want rewards not truly earned.

Building a strong roster is also part of earning the rewards. Why should players with weaker rosters be matched with other players with weaker rosters to have easier access to rank 1 rewards than players with stronger rosters?

Why should players with meta rosters be matched against weak rosters, and handed rewards not earned? EVERY Grand Arena, I'm against opponents clearly undermatched, half of the time they dont attack, and I just get rewards? I want to enjoy my time and strategize, not play checkers with an 8 year old. How am I going to improve...how is that exciting? How is this good for the long term of the event/game? You don't get it, and you make everyones argument about rewards. You seem more concerned about rewards than you are gameplay.

CG design and implement characters and their kit. It's up to you - the player - to figure out, which characters are strong/usefull and for which scenarios/game modes and in which teams. Wether you put your next carbanti on your CUP or on your GK is up to you to decide. It's your own responsibility - not CG's. Your suggested warning is not a good idea.

Furhermore, no matter which character, you give that carbanti to, your roster grows stronger. That CUP becomes stronger, just as well as GK does.

How do you figure a character is weak without having tried it out? Perhaps a GL12 7* CUP is awesome? Exploring that possibility should not be penalized twice. You are already penalized because you didn't invest in the obviously better GK, and now you are also penalized for actually building up CUP. That is really poor game design. Do we want to play the game, or just wait for the next youtube video telling us what to invest in?

No one wants 'warnings' or ways to down-level or un-gear toons. Leveling up and gearing up should always make you better, and there should be no need to retract those stops. But right now there is. Remove that design flaw instead.

My total GP here @ 60,640. Thier GP 79,902....I have 4(z) to thier 9(z)...and almost 20k expanded toons....yes there are many more toons maybe Zata..but just as many expanded toons as well. Even with my Traya and other expanded toons.....Do you see a pattern emerging I can not overcome that Zata count much less a Revan I do not own. This is the best I can show you without exposing my opponents which I will not do

CG design and implement characters and their kit. It's up to you - the player - to figure out, which characters are strong/usefull and for which scenarios/game modes and in which teams. Wether you put your next carbanti on your CUP or on your GK is up to you to decide. It's your own responsibility - not CG's. Your suggested warning is not a good idea.

Furhermore, no matter which character, you give that carbanti to, your roster grows stronger. That CUP becomes stronger, just as well as GK does.

How do you figure a character is weak without having tried it out? Perhaps a GL12 7* CUP is awesome? Exploring that possibility should not be penalized twice. You are already penalized because you didn't invest in the obviously better GK, and now you are also penalized for actually building up CUP. That is really poor game design. Do we want to play the game, or just wait for the next youtube video telling us what to invest in?

Read the character's kit. Check if it's used by top arena players. Ask your guild. Attack teams with that character in TW/GA. There are plenty of ways to explore wether it's good or not. There's always a risk in being a 'first mover' and mindlessly gear any character up.

...and there should be no need to retract those stops. But right now there is. Remove that design flaw instead.

And if matching all players 'evenly' there would be no need in GA to improve your roster. Your chance of winning would remain the same no matter how you develop your roster. That would be and even bigger flaw.

The same argument could apply too players who went lean not only those who chose enhanced...and to match against enhanced will not only provide lean with higher reward tiers for continued "walk about" matches that are of no challenge to them, and will continue to reward enhanced with nothing useful to continue in those present matches that are and will forever be impossible.

I would recommend split it now..I have my super enhanced roster...my GA fate...is all but sealed....split it now so that other mid range players can course correct with the ability to better choose more viable options for thier game. I have placed myself into the position I am in, the most I can do is move forward maybe build some good squads, lean players in my bracket can practice against for a more viable better game mode where they are better challenged. I really don't know what else.

The same argument could apply too players who went lean not only those who chose enhanced...and to match against enhanced will not only provide lean with higher reward tiers for continued "walk about" matches that are of no challenge to them, and will continue to reward enhanced with nothing useful to continue in those present matches that are and will forever be impossible.

Assuming that your definition of 'enhanced' is the same as what others in this thread call 'broad':
The incentive for players with lean rosters to keep improving their rosters is to keep winning instead of letting themselves drop to lower reward ranks as others improve their rosters. With the current system everybody has an incentive to develop a stronger roster.

The same argument could apply too players who went lean not only those who chose enhanced...and to match against enhanced will not only provide lean with higher reward tiers for continued "walk about" matches that are of no challenge to them, and will continue to reward enhanced with nothing useful to continue in those present matches that are and will forever be impossible.

Assuming that your definition of 'enhanced' is the same as what others in this thread call 'broad':
The incentive for players with lean rosters to keep improving their rosters is to keep winning instead of letting themselves drop to lower reward ranks as others improve their rosters. With the current system everybody has an incentive to develop a stronger roster.

I would agree with that..instead the current system rewards "lean" with much better tools to continue "Broaden" and keep thier rosters "lean" when matched with "broad" rosters that are given rewards to continue to "broaden" ( as in gain more useless GP) and to further continue in these "lean" vs "broad" matches. Unless of course your putting alot of stock in mods where super lean mods can equally compete with super lean abilities. In my experience mods only enhance the toon at that star/gear level.

So to switch now and focus on gaining those last two gear levels so we match g12 and g12 the whole time "lean" is gaining premium abilities to further gap with out "really" having to work for them. And "broad" are having to work against impossible hard matches for more "broad GP". Facing ever more leaner matches.

And "broad" rosters are competing for the same better rosters but being assigned more difficult/impossible matches.. awarded with more( useless GP) rewards per the current matching system.

The same argument could apply too players who went lean not only those who chose enhanced...and to match against enhanced will not only provide lean with higher reward tiers for continued "walk about" matches that are of no challenge to them, and will continue to reward enhanced with nothing useful to continue in those present matches that are and will forever be impossible.

Assuming that your definition of 'enhanced' is the same as what others in this thread call 'broad':
The incentive for players with lean rosters to keep improving their rosters is to keep winning instead of letting themselves drop to lower reward ranks as others improve their rosters. With the current system everybody has an incentive to develop a stronger roster.

I would agree with that..instead the current system rewards "lean" with much better tools to continue "Broaden" and keep thier rosters "lean" when matched with "broad" rosters that are given rewards to continue to "broaden" ( as in gain more useless GP) and to further continue in these "lean" vs "broad" matches. Unless of course your putting alot of stock in mods where super lean mods can equally compete with super lean abilities. In my experience mods only enhance the toon at that star/gear level.

So to switch now and focus on gaining those last two gear levels so we match g12 and g12 the whole time "lean" is gaining premium abilities to further gap with out "really" having to work for them. And "broad" are having to work against impossible hard matches for more "broad GP". Facing ever more leaner matches.

And "broad" rosters are competing for the same better rosters but being assigned more difficult/impossible matches.. awarded with more( useless GP) rewards per the current matching system.

You're missing 2 points:
It's up to each player with 'broad' rosters to choose wether to use the rewards to further broaden his roster or wether to use the rewards on strong characters only and slowly grow a less broad roster. There is a choice.

The winner of the GA gains better/more rewards and will most likely not be matched with the loser from that same GA again (since the loser wins less rewards).
(Yes, alot could happen after the GA to change this). It will still pay off for the loser to build a stronger roster, and slowly increase the chance of winning a GA round or 2.

I don't believe, that broad rosters will always remain broad and face even stronger opponents as time goes by.

The only thing I get from this thread is that there are two types of players.

1. Players who want to win battles without any effort.
2. Players who want to test their skills against other players.

Only one of those categories deserves any reward.

If you argue that the matchmaking should be imperfect, you might as well argue that to its extreme. Simply pit players randomly against each other, and let the slaughter begin. That would actually be preferable to the current system.

To clarify I wasn't comparing an individual player with an ever lean roster being matched again with a player he was already given the win for. But the GP class the player has currently been assigned. With out taking in consideration how Zata abilities affect that class and (and the amount of zatas) have already determined the GA outcome. Even a player using very little if any strategy will "walk through" a GP match as long as he has more zatas and enough toons to fill def squads and form off squads. And the "broad" GP toons of the opposing player(which GA matching accounts for in this match) is grossly disadvantaged and do not make a match where it is fun too constantly lose.

Edit: This would include current meta toons not in possession/starred/geared. (ie, Revan,Traya,etc.etc.)

The last point...broad rosters will not continue to be matched vs even leaner rosters as time goes by.

In some instances yes and others no...but the current GA does allow lean rosters to take advantage and rewards effortlessly, with out truly testing what they have as a roster currently vs other of the same caliber.

Where as a broad roster is nothing more then a stepping stone for Mr. Lean roster. And instead must compare his roster to those he already knows where his roster stands against them. (Bigger)

If my entire roster GP must be tested this way, then the game mode should also test the entire roster of the lean. Not just his top half. If I have to fight your Zata toons... your level 1 toons should have to face my level 85..as the entire gp is accounted for. Because my bottom half is larger then yours but still makes up your/my entire GP. Otherwise account GP only for the top half.of our roster keeping in mind Zata abilities and meta toons.

The only thing I get from this thread is that there are two types of players.

1. Players who want to win battles without any effort.
2. Players who want to test their skills against other players.

Only one of those categories deserves any reward.

If you argue that the matchmaking should be imperfect, you might as well argue that to its extreme. Simply pit players randomly against each other, and let the slaughter begin. That would actually be preferable to the current system.

A. Building a strong roster is also a skill.
B. I never claimed, that I have a lean roster and only have 'easy wins'. My alt has 15 g12 characters - the current opponent has 24 g12 characters and a more lean roster. However, I still believe, I have a fair chance, after seeing his front row defense. I believe, I can punch through it, and it doesn't leave my opponent with many counters to some of my own defensive teams. My main is at a lesser disadvantage, but will probably loose. Both won their first rounds. One easy win - one tough battle.
C. I'm fine with loosing to players with stronger rosters, but I gladly take on the challenge of trying to beat them.
D. I have had easy wins here and there, but most of them have also taken some skill.
E. I don't share the attitude, which some express in the thread - that because they built a weak roster (for GA) they should have easier access to wins.

It don't believe it is because they built a weaker roster as it is they are severely overmatched that there is no possible way to progress vs several In this thread trying to protect thier "hand me win matches" for premium rewards.

As I am also fine losing vs someone who built better,not just someone in Zata count and meta toons owned and not owned.

It don't believe it is because they built a weaker roster as it is they are severely overmatched that there is no possible way to progress vs several In this thread trying to protect thier "hand me win matches" for premium rewards.

Two players of almost identical total GP. One player is significantly overmatched. And you don't believe it's because one built a weaker roster (weaker for GA)? How else can he be overmatched if not because of this? Please explain.

As I am also fine losing vs someone who built better,not just someone in Zata count and meta toons owned and not owned.

Please explain this. In my oppinion. Building towards unlocking META toons early is part of building a strong roster. Acquiring more zetas (either by unlocking the challenge earlier, having a strong fleet to place high in fleet arena, getting Talzin/Wicket to 7* early and whatnot) is also part of building a strong roster. This last sentence of yours seem illogical to me. To me it seems like:"You're fine with loosing to players, who built a stronger roster, but not to players who built a stronger roster."

Of course, the winners bracket and higher gp should get better overall rewards than the rest but at least the competition will be more even.

Of course higher Win/loss rate brackets should have significantly better rewards than lower ones. Losing in a higher bracket should reward better rewards than winning a lower bracket. Why should players have easier access to the good rewards simply because they lose a lot?

Of course, the winners bracket and higher gp should get better overall rewards than the rest but at least the competition will be more even.

Of course higher Win/loss rate brackets should have significantly better rewards than lower ones. Losing in a higher bracket should reward better rewards than winning a lower bracket. Why should players have easier access to the good rewards simply because they lose a lot?

Of course, the winners bracket and higher gp should get better overall rewards than the rest but at least the competition will be more even.

Of course higher Win/loss rate brackets should have significantly better rewards than lower ones. Losing in a higher bracket should reward better rewards than winning a lower bracket. Why should players have easier access to the good rewards simply because they lose a lot?

Glad we're on the same page

If you agree, that the rewards should be significantly better, for players in the high win/loss ratio bracket, then yes. However, I'm not sure, that players in higher GP brackets should necessarily have higher rewards as well. High GP doesn't prove better performance.

It don't believe it is because they built a weaker roster as it is they are severely overmatched that there is no possible way to progress vs several In this thread trying to protect thier "hand me win matches" for premium rewards.

Two players of almost identical total GP. One player is significantly overmatched. And you don't believe it's because one built a weaker roster (weaker for GA)? How else can he be overmatched if not because of this? Please explain.

As I am also fine losing vs someone who built better,not just someone in Zata count and meta toons owned and not owned.

Please explain this. In my oppinion. Building towards unlocking META toons early is part of building a strong roster. Acquiring more zetas (either by unlocking the challenge earlier, having a strong fleet to place high in fleet arena, getting Talzin/Wicket to 7* early and whatnot) is also part of building a strong roster. This last sentence of yours seem illogical to me. To me it seems like:"You're fine with loosing to players, who built a stronger roster, but not to players who built a stronger roster."

Issue 1: built a stronger roster because they have more Zatas, in my matches up to 2x more then I have..enough to put a Zata squad in every spot on def and offense...I have too choose to use mine on def or on off.....that's unbalanced. Because of this they have only the top half of thier roster being matched with my full roster. Zatas carry a lot weight as they should with enhanceing abilities. (I have explained this in depth several pages back)

Issue 2: If your definition of stronger is just anything stronger.. and then as OP said above why match with GP under the current system and your definition it shouldn't matter. Let the slaughter begin.

In one GA I had to use all my zatas 28 of them(now I have a couple more) and fight off players 38/42/48. So is this just a stronger build or a mismatch. That is an earthquake match, no surviving. And no this didn't happen just once....as a matter of just recently I used my new 32 zatas vs a guy with 54...so what did I gain.....I get it, I must still be just building weak as per your definition.

I had a match 1-2 times sense GA started and I lost but it was very close Zatas I had maybe 3-4 less. I didn't mind the loss as he just inched me out in banners like literally (8).

When I asked why shouldn't a lean roster be vs against another lean roster of same GP...more zatas...more meta toons owned....the answer I was given "why should I have too vs someone lean. I built lean so I shouldn't have too. (This again do some homework, you can find it several pages back you will find your answer there, no I'm not going to do it for you, do it yourself.)